Please Dems, not Hillary! [Archive]

Eliaures

January 11th, 2008, 17:02

I sure hope the Democrats are not on the path that they have generally chosen by choosing a candidate that appeals to the Democratic base of policy wonks, political toadies, lifetime politicos, and spineless wonders. Why must they always field Presidential candidates like Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, and John Kerry? I feel that Hillary Clinton is just such a candidate.

Lest you think me from the Woman Hater's Manly Man Club, I'm from Texas and my heroes from this state have been Barbara Jordon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Jordan), Houston congresswoman; Kathy Whitmire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_J._Whitmire), Houston mayor; Ann Richards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards), state governor; and Molly Ivins (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070219/molly_ivins), rabble rouser and Texas journalist. It was always my wish that Ann Richards had run for the Presidency. I'm a progressive by choice and a liberal Democrat by default. My first choice for the Democratic Presidential nominee is Dennis Kucinich followed in order by John Edwards and Barack Obama.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is "divisive", just the opposite. I won't go into specifics because a much better profile of her can be found here (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/ehrenreich). She is much too accommodating to corporate interests and I don't think we'll see that much difference in her approach to the economy than George W. She is also the most hawkish Democrat running for President and if you don't think a woman could get us into war, just look and Margaret Thatcher.

I would prefer Dennis Kucinich since he represents my positions on just about every issue; the war, the economy, health care, the environment, and the Constitution. Since he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning either the nomination or the Presidency, sadly I must support another. My second choice was John Edwards since he has said the right things about the poor, and the working and middle classes. It now appears he also is not going to be supported by Democrats for the nomination. Finally I choose to support Barack Obama.

I would much prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, for several reasons. The most important, was stated by some pundit I saw on Countdown with Keith Olberman. Barack Obama could be the best person to repair our reputation in the world community. A black man with a Muslim name from immigrant background, he would be someone that represents the diversity in America and the world. He would be the best thing we could present to the world after the disaster that was George W Bush.

I also think that Barack Obama could be the candidate that could show the most change after winning the Presidency. Right now, he has to keep his tone very centrist and for that reason I was and still am a bit skeptical of him. But, he also would not get very far as a candidate if he was more radical. So I'm hoping that if he gets in, he will become more progressive during his second term. That's a big if unfortunately. It appears as if the old bugaboo that black candidates have always had to deal with is back if New Hampshire is any indication. Folks say they will vote for a black person in the polls, but then choose another in the privacy of the voting booth.

skavenhorde

January 11th, 2008, 17:12

Seems like everyone is supporting Obama and not Hillary. Kucinich has put his support behind Obama and is even asking for a recount in NH. He said that the polls and hand-counted ballots favored Obama, while machines favored Hillary.

Everytime I turn on the news it seems that another canidate that doesn't have a hope of winning is asking their supporters to back Obama and not Hillary. Kucinich did it in Ohio.

Prime Junta

January 11th, 2008, 17:32

It'll be an interesting primary season for sure. Hur hur.

Squeek

January 11th, 2008, 19:08

Hillary Clinton is intelligent, well educated and experienced. As far as I can tell, her critics' concerns are all only negative assertions and characterizations like the ones in the profile (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/ehrenreich) referenced by the OP.

Where are the facts? Those "sleazy deals" were examined under a microscope that found nothing illegal. "Nothing illegal" is OK for the rest of us, but not for her, apparently. She's still "sleazy."

If she had a prettier smile and seemed less bright, and if she were content with being nothing more than a wife and mother, no one would be saying these things about her.

dteowner

January 11th, 2008, 19:11

Part of me is rooting for the Ice Queen, since I think she'll be obnoxious enough to push the 20% undecided's over to the Republican side. The other part of me is scared that the "Dubya Backlash" might be so bad that it won't matter and Hillary would get elected. Heaven help us...

Eliaures

January 11th, 2008, 19:55

If she had a prettier smile and seemed less bright, and if she were content with being nothing more than a wife and mother, no one would be saying these things about her.

Well, the article I linked to was from The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/) which has a good reputation for journalism and certainly for women considering the editor is Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Here's another article (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/baker_federman) that discusses her ties to big money. No, it's not the old Republican talking points that has progressives concerned about Hillary, it's her support from lobbyists and the corporate sector. She is only slightly more left than Lieberman. She and Bill supported NAFTA and the spread of Chicago school economics here and worldwide. I could care less about her personality, it's her stand on the issues that has me supporting anyone but Hillary.

Prime Junta

January 11th, 2008, 20:06

She and Bill supported NAFTA and the spread of Chicago school economics here and worldwide. I could care less about her personality, it's her stand on the issues that has me supporting anyone buy Hillary.

Not consistently: the Clinton presidency's record about economic policy, both at home and abroad, is very mixed indeed. It's hard to discern any clear philosophy there, other than doing whatever seems like a good idea at the time.

Which, come to think of it, isn't horrible as philosophies go. You could certainly do a lot worse...

curiously undead

January 11th, 2008, 20:09

if you litterally want to burn in hell vote republican this time, unless you vote mccain as mccain is the only main canidate with a comprehensive environmental plan. all three leading democrats however have one.

how people can stand tv i don't know...
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/10/study_of_over_2_000_sunday

this interview was also really good on tuesday although its unlikely to quell any fears about your vote counting, it is highly informative.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/8/how_to_rig_an_election_convicted

this was a real inspirational speak for me by the way: although theres other canidates and politicians i share more values and ideas with (nader, kusinech) obama is the first canidate/politician i've ever been inspired by, and truly believed in. i believe no one out there can come close to revitalizing our nation, by listening to everyone sides, and acting in our best interest while at the same time not trying to please everyone. if the us doesn't get progressive soon we will surely become backwater usa and we might as well lower our flag and give the nation back to the native americans as "we can't stay in the cradle forever"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms&feature=user

magerette

January 11th, 2008, 20:31

My first exposure to that site( The Nation), Eliaures. Thanks. Let me say I've never been into politics or politicians, and I'm no good at being impartial when it comes to the government so bear that in mind when I get on my soapbox, as this topic always inspires me to do.:)

I found your views on Obama extremely interesting and valid and I agree with much of your position on Hillary. There is also a personal prejudice against her on my part growing out of the things I personally dislike about her that theoretically shouldn't matter in a presidential election, like her marriage (a career decision) her phobias (refusing to use public toilets in Haiti and having her own built at taxpayer expense--truth from someone who was working for our foreign service there at the time and whose word I don't question) and her frozen teflon persona that exploits the honest desire of women to see a compassionate wife and mother in an ambitious and ruthless pragmatist who has sacrificed everything to her desire for power. But I seem to have strayed as I often do into, as I say, the purely personal.... :)

For our country, I agree that her position is at least outwardly centrist with a lean toward the traditional Dem policy of Bigger is Better government and might not be disastrous--or more disastrous than any other candidate---here at home. However, I don't believe Hillary will ever be enough of a diplomat or a subtle enough thinker to represent us well in the complex arena of foreign relations. I think she will tend to defer to the Pentagon and the usual sycophantic ring of Washington insider advisors rather than make leadership decisions, and I really truly doubt that she is capable of understanding change, let alone bringing it about in a positive way. She understands working the system and playing to the crowd(from her days with Bill-witness the oh so opportune, quivering stiff upper lip in NH) but I believe her to be severely limited in actual judgement about good, evil and ethics in general.

My impression (as someone with a profound ignorance of politics) is that in our government, it may be best to vote for a leader who is as radically close to your own ideals as you can get, even if as in Kucinich's, Paul's or Nader's case, it is a policy so extremely different from what's in place that bringing it into actuality is unrealistically far from what can happen in the timespan of one president's allotment of administrations. This is because the inertia of the system can't be effected by a small stick of dynamite--it needs nuclear fission to get the mass moving.

Just my fifty cents.

Edit: Thanks for the links , c.u. Don't go much for political speeches and rallies, but found that one actually more positive than painful, I hope it is also accurate in assessing the ability of all of us to embrace change.

blatantninja

January 11th, 2008, 20:43

If the democrats nominate the wicked witch of the east, there are only two things that are sure:

1) the republicans will win the election
2) they'll also feel they have even less need for accountability to the public.

Prime Junta

January 11th, 2008, 20:54

@blatantninja: the only thing that's sure about this election is that nothing is sure. A lot can and most certainly will change between now and November.

Re the candidates: I too have a visceral dislike for Clinton and an equally irrational liking for Obama. However, when I look at their stated policies or records, I really can't say which one would be the better president. As to the Republican front runners, my take is that none of them have any intention of addressing the structural problems America is facing, which will simply mean that America continues its long, slow downwards spiral towards Mexico.

(Then again, the Democrats haven't been talking much about the real problems either. Namely, growing income differentials, corporate special interests, health care, Iraq, infrastructure, basic research, and education.)

txa1265

January 11th, 2008, 21:40

Re the candidates: I too have a visceral dislike for Clinton and an equally irrational liking for Obama.
I am feeling the same - but I know that a lot of mine is that I don't think of the Clinton years in a positive way ... and watching her feels like Bush, Jr initially using the growing love for his father and wake of 'Clinton Fatigue' ... but now it is Bill Clinton as 'the good ol' days' ..

As to the Republican front runners, my take is that none of them have any intention of addressing the structural problems America is facing
After having Mitt Romney as governor I really don't like him - and more importantly deeply distrust him. He is a very smart man, but his managerial style I feel resembles the typical Republican style, which should be 'a team of leaders' but from the 2nd Reagan team on out has been shown as 'decentralized power grabbing and accountability avoidance'. My wife absolutely abhors him.

Squeek

January 11th, 2008, 22:04

It's hard to assess Hillary's negatives. I've heard some talking heads claim the Republicans will win if she gets the nomination because of them. Myself, I don't think they're as strong as that.

If the Democrats want to win, she's the one to pick. She has an overwhelming advantage: She's married to Bill Clinton. He may be the best campaigner this country's seen in the last hundred years, and he'll win it for her singlehandedly if it comes to that.

If the Democrats want to lose, they'll pick Obama. He's too new, and there's just no getting around that. By the time the election rolls around, he will have spent the majority of his time as an elected official campaigning for President. The minute he makes his first mis-step, the media will pounce on it:

"Do you think he's too inexperienced?"
"Well, he is awfully inexperienced."
"How inexperienced is he, really?"
"Well, let's compare his inexperience to the inexperience of other people with his same amount of experience."

John McCain is looking better and better. Around that same time that everyone's finally accepting the fact that Obama is too new, they'll also be accepting the fact that that old fart was right about the troop surge and right about trying to reach a compromise on the illegal-immigration issue.

magerette

January 11th, 2008, 22:33

McCain is someone I originally backed and still feel strongly positive about, but he certainly is looking frail these days and every one of his years and hard knocks is visible in his face. There's no doubt that campaigning for president looks harder than actually being president.

Eliaures

January 12th, 2008, 00:16

The "old fart" originally said that the surge was not going to be large enough. Now he's among all the Republicans claiming that the surge is working. If you count that the Sunnis have stopped a large part of their insurgency (before the surge mind you), the civil war had slowed down because the ethnic cleansing has largely finished since around a million Iraqis have left in the past year; then yes, the surge has worked.

I used to admire McCain at one time. That was before he embraced W, literally, went to Bob Jones U, flip flopped and caved on much of his straight talk, and has gone from being someone that I used to think spoke truth, to a typical slick, Romney type politician.

txa1265

January 12th, 2008, 00:25

I am generally fairly conservative (or at least more social liberal, fiscal conservative), but I have become of the belief that only through a sea change that requires the gutting of every non-elected department can we regain some amount of accountability in the government. Of course, that doesn't guarantee it will be better ... or even work. I just see it as the only way possible.

magerette

January 12th, 2008, 00:37

@Eliaures Thanks for your input--not much good at politics and I hadn't noted your points, just that McC had remained consistent on not pulling out and leaving another pit of partisan chaos in Iraq--if you have a good quick read, feel free to recommend. I leave the room when the election coverage comes on to keep my blood pressure in line. :)

@Mike--revamping non-elected departments would be a good start. You use one of my favorite descriptive phrases, "sea change"--I think Prime J has talked about the need for American government to be reinvented and I just mentioned the nuclear fission method to jump start change in the system. I think in some ways having things at an all-time peak of screwed-upness might be the only way any of these things is going to happen, in which case we can cheer up because I think we're there. :)

dteowner

January 12th, 2008, 03:13

The system is self-perpetuating. 10 to 12 years ago, there was a cataclysmic shift in Congress, netting a huge influx of fresh faces elected on promises of sweeping reform to reduce lobbyist influence and campaign finances. That lasted all of 6 months. I just don't see a significant change short of us doing 1776 all over again.

The nation needs consistent policies for a couple decades to make any real progress. Given that the masses have an attention span of roughly 4 minutes and less patience, that won't happen. We'll take two steps right at great effort and expense, then have an election and take two steps left at great effort and expense, then have an election...

magerette

January 12th, 2008, 08:41

dte wrote:
The system is self-perpetuating....

Yes, in some ways it's like a spreading fungus or mold in the plant world--new leaves exposed to it eventually pick it up, curl up and die or function in a sad twisted state--however, nature has a plan about that. There are always certain individuals in a plant population that have a higher resistance. These are the ones that live long enough to reproduce, and perpetuate their resistance. The trick is to select the resistant variety and plant lots of it. Or there's always chemical control, but we probably can't soak congress in fungicide without a few security issues.

Yes, it's very very late and I'm going to bed now. :)

Prime Junta

January 12th, 2008, 12:04

It's been done before, though. Franklin D. Roosevelt reengineered the entire American system, against enormous opposition from corporate interests. Can it be done again? I don't know -- but I do know that the American public in general must get a lot angrier and a lot more politically active for it to happen.

Arpyjee

January 14th, 2008, 09:44

Not consistently: the Clinton presidency's record about economic policy, both at home and abroad, is very mixed indeed.

True. Most are unaware that Bill Clinton cut welfare and ramped up the drug war during his tenure. Most are also unaware that the Clinton's right-leaning Neo-Liberalism is actually *contrary* to the left (especially outside the US), the left which is better represented by Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards and Obama.

Some counter with Hillary's socialized medicine. Ok. But the exception proves the rule : look at her voting for the Iraq war (and being unapologetic about it), voting for approval of use of force wrt Iran, and her only advocating income tax increases for those earning $250,000+ / yr. (whereas the other Democrats support the tax hike for those earning considerably less than that, more in the $80,000-130,000 range).

Then there is the whole issue of establishment elitism dominating the USA for years, under the Bush-Clinton political family dynasty. Is there no option beyond 2 parties and 2 families ? Even small European/Scandinavian countries have 8-10 diverse parties to choose from and proportional representation (a direct correlation between the number of votes received and number of parliamentary seats given).

The US electoral system is corrupt, complicated, chaotic, elitist and non-transparent. It's more about purchasing the presidency. Maybe in the future, the local multi-billionaire will be declared the winner, with "Precision" e-voting machines (formerly "Diebold") declaring the biggest bank account the winner, with no paper trail and with no neutral/independent verfication of the tabulations.

Meanwhile, the US has a very high child povery rate, very high violent crime rates and the highest incarceration rate on earth ! Do you think that just MIGHT have something to do with the Neo-Conservative/Neo-Liberal Bush/Clinton monopoly ?

The USA and it's people should have the moral and legal right to a MUCH wider range of political alternatives than they have been given, imo.

Eliaures

January 14th, 2008, 14:14

Hear, hear Arpyjee! You stated many of the things that I've been concerned about the Clintons. They are more establishment than the mainstream media and especially the right wing spin machine would have you believe. I think corporatists would much prefer Hillary to any of the other Democrats or even Mike Huckaby.

I was really hoping that after the U.S. experiment with unfettered neo-liberal, i.e. Friedman Chicago school economics, we were ready for a more progressive government. I feel so helpless in this electoral system. Since I live in Texas, my vote pretty much never counts. In the last two Presidential elections, it mattered not that I voted Democrat, my state was going W all the way. My individual vote disappeared into the ether as my states electoral votes went to W. My vote in the Democratic primary will probably not count for much either since we come so late in the primary season.

For the "greatest nation in the World", we sure have a lot of fooked up stuff. ;)

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 14:23

If only the US had experimented with Friedman Chicago school economics. Friedman & co are respectable, sensible, and prudent conservatives. While I believe the neo-Keynesians could have done even better, Friedman's gang would never, ever have advocated economic policies that got America into the hole that's currently collapsing about its ears.

The problem is that the US didn't. It experimented with supply-side economics, which are to Friedman what Jim Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_jones) was to Christianity. No serious economist would have advocated the "cut taxes and never mind the deficit, growth will be explosive and the Laffer curve will take care of it" policies that got you where you are now. Neocons are just supply-siders with guns.

dteowner

January 14th, 2008, 16:39

Indeed, let's hand the money to John Q Public! The masses show such good fiscal management that it's beyond obvious that they are most qualified to set policy. Those corporate fat cats move money and maintain profits all day long--what qualifications do they have to influence economic policy? :rolleyes:

Since our government is bought and sold these days, it should come as no surprise that the deficit continues to increase. Hucksters on both sides of the aisle hand out money as fast as they can manage it. Until John Q gets smart enough to realize where those handouts come from (and no, John Q, taking more from corporations via increased taxes isn't free, either), it won't get better. The baby boomers feel entitled enough to suck the nation dry and my generation is even worse. The thieves are going to control the vault, folks.

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 17:33

I don't think most critics of the current system are as concerned about (the lack of) corporate taxation as they are about corporate welfare. The leftist American economists I've read (Krugman, Stiglitz) do not want a return to the 90% marginal tax rates of 1970 or so although they do want to increase progression somewhat and bring the income and capital gains tax rates closer together, increase infrastructure, research, and educational investment, provide better unemployment insurance and a single-payer health care system, and reduce agricultural and corporate subsidies. Among other things.

The interesting thing is that the distance between Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman is way shorter than most pundits you'd have you believe. The difference between either of these and Larry... ahem, Arthur Laffer is much bigger.

Eliaures

January 14th, 2008, 17:33

Friedman & co are respectable, sensible, and prudent conservatives.

These are the guys that installed Pinochet in Chile, destroyed the economies of most of south and central America through their operatives in the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, and capitalized on both natural and man-made disasters after the tsunami and the war in Iraq.

Cutting taxes is exactly what neo-liberals suggest. They have imposed flat tax rates on those nations that have had to accept it after having to accept debt restructuring from those Chicago school bastions above, the World Bank and the WTO. Other experiments from these "respectable, sensible, and prudent conservatives" have been wholesale privatization, cuts to government programs (of course benefiting the poor), and any kinds of labor laws. Those countries are only now recovering from the disaster that was Friedman economics by embracing Keynesian style economics. Bravo for Chavez and Morales!

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 17:40

These are the guys that installed Pinochet in Chile, destroyed the economies of most of south and central America through their operatives in the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, and capitalized on both natural and man-made disasters after the tsunami and the war in Iraq.

No, they're not. But people who trumpet their names did, so the confusion is understandable. The Washington Consensus emerged out of the financial institutions in Washington, D.C., not the schools where Friedman, Feldman et al. teach.

Cutting taxes is exactly what neo-liberals suggest. They have imposed flat tax rates on those nations that have had to accept it after having to accept debt restructuring from those Chicago school bastions above, the World Bank and the WTO. Other experiments from these "respectable, sensible, and prudent conservatives" have been wholesale privatization, cuts to government programs (of course benefiting the poor), and any kinds of labor laws. Those countries are only now recovering from the disaster that was Friedman economics by embracing Keynesian style economics. Bravo for Chavez and Morales!

You're right about the policies and their disastrous results, but you're mistaken about blaming Friedman's economics for them. The IMF's politics are not and never were based on sound economic theory; they were based on protecting the interests of creditors -- Western countries and banks -- at the expense of debtors. That's why they made inflation and fiscal discipline their cornerstones, never mind if unemployment goes through the roof.

There is a grain of truth in your outrage, though: the IMF and the neocons did often quote the Chicago school economists to defend their policies -- just like some religious nutcases quote the Bible/Qur'an/whatever. And the Chicago school certainly bears some of the blame for this perception, since they did not publicly disassociate themselves from these policies, and lent some political support to Reagan, GWB, and certain others.

But the fact remains that the economic policy you're upset about was driven by the supply-siders in the US, and by naked special interests in the IMF, rather than by sober analysis by the Chicago schoolers.

Finally, I think you'll admit yourself that it's slightly absurd to blame a university professor for Pinochet -- that was a pure "our bastard" Cold War power play.

Ick, and finally finally -- the neo-liberals are not the same people as the monetarists, although there is a connection of a sort between the two.

(Again, for the record, I believe that Friedman's monetarism has largely been discredited and the neo-Keynesians have both better models and better policies -- but that doesn't mean that Friedman et al. are the demons you make them out to be, nor that their critique of Keynesianism was without merit.)

Eliaures

January 14th, 2008, 19:18

magerette

January 14th, 2008, 19:41

Thanks for the book references, Elliaures. Very informative discussion going on here with some great posts. I can only agree with Arpyjee on his perception of the Clintons and the lack of choices available to American voters, and with you on how meaningless one's vote feels down here(Oklahoma)--I haven't seen a liberal in person for fifteen years. ;)

@dte--We baby boomers have been reviled since adolescence as hippy scum, then yuppie sell-outs and now the big drain on the social security system that will break everything, but I would like to say most of us have worked our entire lives, funded the retirement of our parents generation, and all the welfare programs now in place, so perhaps there's a reason we feel "entitled" to let somebody else do it for a change. :)

Prime Junta

January 14th, 2008, 20:48

Well, I may be a bit brain-washed, but I'm getting quite a bit about what I'm stating from several books, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein, and Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran where you can see the experimenters policies in action.

I'm not saying Friedman caused the overthrow of Allende, the CIA did, but he was as influential for that "regime change" as William Randolph Hearst was for the Spanish-American war.

It's my understanding that supply-siders ARE neo-liberals for the most part. They're the ones that say that unregulated free markets will create enough wealth that a very small portion will "trickle" down to the peasants.

I agree with you entirely about the neoliberals/market fundamentalists. All I'm sayin' is that it's not fair to equate them with Friedman and the Chicago school: a truer picture would be that the neoliberals looked for justifications for their policies in Friedman, rather than reading Friedman and deriving their policies from their models. So the relationship between the neoliberals/market fundamentalists/supply-siders with Friedman would be a bit like the relationship between the eugenics movement/nazis and Darwin.

dteowner

January 15th, 2008, 06:10

(Oklahoma)--I haven't seen a liberal in person for fifteen years. ;)I knew there was a reason I liked living out there... ;)

@dte--We baby boomers have been reviled since adolescence as hippy scum, then yuppie sell-outs and now the big drain on the social security system that will break everything, but I would like to say most of us have worked our entire lives, funded the retirement of our parents generation, and all the welfare programs now in place, so perhaps there's a reason we feel "entitled" to let somebody else do it for a change. :)As much as we've over-glorified "the greatest generation", nobody could say they didn't build and pass down wealth very well overall. Although the boomers have certainly done their time, I don't know that they've really built much wealth to pass along. What they've built, they plan to (whether by enjoying retirement or thru bad health) leave little behind. Then you've got the baby bubble (post-Vietnam mini boom) generation that's mostly digging a hole and assuming Mommy and Daddy will fill it.

Arpyjee

January 15th, 2008, 07:34

Moderate, measured, economic neo-liberal policies wouldn't be so bad if they were counterbalanced from the left and the right equally, but that is not the case in North America. In the USA, the only alternative to neo-liberalism is ultra-right neo-conservatism, and it is the same in Canada, though to a slightly lesser extent, due to the presence of their social-democratic NDP (which has never actually formed government, though).

The rightward drift of neo-liberalism is bound to happen when it's being constantly yanked to the right by prominent neo-cons Bush, Cheney, Rove and others. Republicans have had a substantial edge over the Democrats in forming the official federal government (65%:35% or so).

Now if the US had 3 parties :

-Center-Left Party/Green party (Kucinich, Nader)
-Democrats (Obama, Edwards, Clinton)
-Republicans (Romney, McCain, Huckabee)

...and they each were elected 33% of the time, and effectively held 33% of the power/vote, the neo-liberal agenda wouldn't be pulled to the right by the neo-cons so readily. It would be anchored and counterbalanced.

magerette

January 15th, 2008, 09:35

As much as we've over-glorified "the greatest generation", nobody could say they didn't build and pass down wealth very well overall.

Well, they certainly didn't do a very good job of passing it down in my family. ;)

Although the boomers have certainly done their time, I don't know that they've really built much wealth to pass along.

This piqued my curiosity, and I googled off to Forbes.com where by painstaking
research(!)* I found that approximately 187.5 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest people in America (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/54/richlist07_The-400-Richest-Americans_Age.html), or a respectable almost-half, are baby boomers (born between 1946-1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom)). This includes guys like Bill Gates, Donald Trump and Steven Spielberg. About 25 are younger, another 100 or so are between 63-70, and the remainder are really really old, the rich bastards.

What they've built, they plan to (whether by enjoying retirement or thru bad health) leave little behind.

Bill, Donald and I are leaving more behind than we started with, ;) but yes, I'm probably going to need it all (such as it is) to survive before it's all said and done. I'm doing the best I can to spend it wisely before it disappears or the government finds a way to take it away from me. You'll have to figure out how to get your own, dude. :)

This may seem to be off topic, yet in a way, it chimes in with the rest of the economic discussion. I think it's at the heart of our fiscal irresponsibility, a direct result of our failure to hold government accountable, and it ought to be being prominently discussed in this election(somewhere besides here.)

Instead we've got a circus of personalities.

Where did all that money go? That is, all the billions in taxes paid by the largest generation in US history? Huge bureaucratic inefficient social service programs, ag subsidies, corporate siphoning, wars, supporting foreign regimes, I don't know. I think it goes without saying some of it probably ended up in the pockets of the 400 wealthiest Americans.(--note you can't even get on the list unless you're a billionaire.) Our government has certainly had their share from me. Unless we all begin working for change, you kids are going to inherit a nightmare. (I'll just sit on the porch and rock and eat my Alpo. :) )

(*list sorted by age and counted by page @ 25 per page-the monkey with a keyboard method)

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 11:36

@Arpyjee, which neo-liberals are you talking about? There are more neos here than the Matrix, so it's getting a bit confusing.

At least from where I'm from, "neo-liberal" usually means something like "market fundamentalist" -- someone who took Friedman's noninterventionism and ran with it until they got very close to the anarcho-capitalist fringe. OTOH I've also seen it used about "Clinton liberals" -- people who believe that the state should take a more active role in promoting strategic industries, through subsidies or even tariffs.

It's confusing as hell, though; suddenly the neocons turn into neoliberals, the neo-Keynesians are at war with the *other* neoliberals, and the Keynesians are more like the paleoconservatives. Gaah!

Arpyjee

January 15th, 2008, 12:04

By neo-liberal, I'm referring to all those who are to the right of center in their economic policies !! *Including* Hillary (as opposed to those more traditional Liberals who are center to center-left) !! The new liberals have shifted far to the right in their economic policies (neverending tax cuts, globalism, free trade agreements, corporate welfare/sanctuary, foreign ownership, cheap labor, union busting, etc.) and are mimicking the neo-cons because the neo-cons have pulled the neo-liberals to the right, bringing about a paradigm shift !! Hopefully, the neo-liberals don't start mimicking the neo-con's domestic social policies and foreign policies as well !!

My view is based on the notion that extremism is bad !! I'm also mimicking Corwin's use of exclamations just for fun !!

(whew, that was exhausting)

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 12:20

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 12:23

txa1265

January 15th, 2008, 12:37

Now if the US had 3 parties :

-Center-Left Party/Green party (Kucinich, Nader)
-Democrats (Obama, Edwards, Clinton)
-Republicans (Romney, McCain, Huckabee)

...and they each were elected 33% of the time, and effectively held 33% of the power/vote, the neo-liberal agenda wouldn't be pulled to the right by the neo-cons so readily. It would be anchored and counterbalanced.

Of course, that comes down to:
- Really liberal
- Liberal, but will bend to get elected
- Conservative, but will bend to get elected

If you wanted true parity, you would need a true ultra-conservative party - not a bunch of religious nutjobs, but people who believe in the tenets of personal initiative and states rights and so on. Then you would have 4 way parity, ... and as PJ says, absolute shrill gridlock.

I would be happy with a 20:30:30:20 mix there ... something to allow the centrists to flex power and stay true to themselves while allowing both ends some influence over the debate. Despite the opinions formed by the Bush crew in the heads of an overwhelming majority of people from all ends of the spectrum, no one group has a monopoly on 'rightness' by virtue of their fundamental political ideology.

Eliaures

January 15th, 2008, 16:20

I'm not sure we've all got the true definition of neo-liberal here. Neo-liberal is a confusing term because you would be well within your rights to think it has something to do with the political ideology of liberalism. Neo-liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) is in my opinion a conservative economic philosophy that espouses a return to the classic economics of Adam Smith. This certainly defines what conservatism is supposed to be about, a resistance to change and an almost unwavering support for tradition. To add even more confusion, neo-conservatives (a movement reacting to the "hippy" left movement of the 60's and 70's) mostly embrace the policies of neo-liberals.

To get back to the original premise, it was Bill Clinton with Robert Rubin that pushed trade liberalization and free trade policy. After seeing who Hillary's economic advisers are, I don't see that this will change with a new Clinton administration. Under Hillary we will most likely see more outsourcing, high drug prices, and more shoddy, dangerous goods coming from China.

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 17:21

To get back to the original premise, it was Bill Clinton with Robert Rubin that pushed trade liberalization and free trade policy. After seeing who Hillary's economic advisers are, I don't see that this will change with a new Clinton administration. Under Hillary we will most likely see more outsourcing, high drug prices, and more shoddy, dangerous goods coming from China.

I take it you're against trade liberalization and free trade, then. If so, could you elaborate a bit on the alternatives? That is, which types of trade barriers would you like to see erected -- tariffs, regulation, subsidies, something else? --, who would you have erect them, and how would you go about avoiding international trade wars if they were erected?

I'm asking, 'cuz from where I'm at, you're barking up the wrong tree. The problem with the current international organization isn't that it's "too free" -- it's that the playing field isn't level, and that it doesn't factor in social and environmental costs.

So, for example, we have free capital markets. This makes it possible for capital-rich countries to cash in quickly anywhere in the world -- at the expense of creating an enormous amount of instability: when there's an opportunity, you get an enormous capital inflow; when there's a scare, the capital leaves as quickly as it arrived, leaving the country a shambles. (Cf. the 1997 Asian crash.)

Conversely, we have a heavily protected agricultural sector, which squeezes developing countries out of the market and even turns some of them into food importers. And let's not even talk about the labor market, which is pretty much completely walled-off between economic zones.

What I'd like to see is *more* globalization, not less -- but done differently than so far. For example:

* Kyoto/Bali with teeth. A climate treaty that sets up emissions targets for all adherents, divides up emissions targets of non-adherents between the adherents, institutes a carbon-trading market that rewards reforestation and preservation of forests (among other things), and enforces the targets through "carbon tariffs," equally on members and non-members of the treaty. The monies collected with the tariffs would then be spent among adherents on carbon sequestration and emissions reduction. We would need a global body to monitor the system, too. (The good news is this has been done before on a somewhat smaller scale -- we got rid of CFC's with a system very much like this.)

* Abolition of agricultural subsidies, with a possible exception made for small family farmers to preserve cultural values. For example, cap the subsidy at, say, $20,000 per farm -- enough to make a critical difference for the small family farmer, but small enough to effectively eliminate their current negative effects. This could be done gradually, and social programs might be needed to cushion the effects of the somewhat higher food prices on the poor. (The rise wouldn't be as big as you could think simply from the size of the subsidy, though, as imports from the developing world would replace the subsidized food from the developed world.)

* Abolition of corporate welfare, especially of the oil and extractive industries. Exxon is doing just fine without being subsidized by the state, IMO. Exceptions could be made to seed new industries -- but capitalizing small startups to give them a leg-up is a very different matter from funneling billions to the likes of Exxon-Mobil or Monsanto.

* Sensible controls on the capital market. Unlike hard goods, capital can be zapped around the world at the click of a button. This results in greater instability, not greater growth -- and, of course, makes it possible for illegal drug and arms dealers, terrorists, and dictators to easily hide their money. We need more transparency and something to slow down capital flows -- perhaps a "Tobin tax," or perhaps just adding a "throttle" that makes transferring billions of dollars slower than it is now. If the current system is like a shallow tray where capital sloshes around and causes all kinds of spills, we'd need to add something like a honeycomb structure that gets it to stay put a bit more.

* A redistribution of risk to where it belongs. Currently, the main function of institutions like the IMF, the World Bank -- and, incidentally, various quasi-governmental banks in the US -- is to protect creditors, not debtors. On the micro scale, a mortgage broker who knowingly or negligently sells a mortgage to a bad risk knows that he can walk away, with the taxpayer picking up the bill for an eventual default combined with a drop in the value of the house. On the macro scale, a Western lender knowingly or negligently lending a billion or two to a country known to be a bad risk can be confident that, when push comes to shove, the IMF will squeeze the money out of the debtor, even if it means selling off the debtor's means of production. Lenders must be made to carry more of the risk of their bad debts: the flip side of overborrowing is overlending, whether we're talking mortgages or national debt.

I could go on, but you get the picture. The problem isn't that we have more free trade: the problem is that the trade is unfair, benefiting corporate interests über alls, and rewarding asset-stripping, environmental degradation, predatory lending, and exploitation of labor.

Whew.

Arpyjee

January 15th, 2008, 17:29

Right, I see what you mean. Still, that's a pretty broad definition, since there are very important differences within that group; you have a point, though, that the discourse has been seized by these people.

There's nothing inherently liberal -- neo or classical -- about free trade and globalization, though -- Keynes and his modern day followers are all for it. The problem is that free trade isn't really, and globalization has been managed in a completely lopsided way -- the rights of creditors over debtors, capital over labor, agriculture in the developed world over agriculture in the less developed world, and so on, with social and ecological costs not just neglected but completely left out of the equation.

It's called new liberalism for a reason : it's a departure from the traditional concept, and if the only 'opposition' to it comes from the ultra-right, then it really runs the risk of being hijacked by and for powerful corporate elitists. I call it rampaging corporatism : it is functionally oblivious to the bottom 2/3rds of society, while it perpetually and exponentially upholds the interests of the upper economic 3rd.

If there was a center-left counterbalance in the US, then it (economic neo-liberalism) wouldn't be so negligent and unrestrained.

Arpyjee

January 15th, 2008, 17:35

I'm a big fan of multi-party systems, but they do need a specific political climate to function, and the US today may not have that climate.

So goes the assumption, to the detriment of most Americans (especially the poor and the lower middle class).

It's really simple : if Americans want the 2 party neo-lib/neo-con monopoly to continue indefinitely, then they won't strive or ask for a changing, tweaking or overhaul of their system.

Arpyjee

January 15th, 2008, 17:44

Of course, that comes down to:
- Really liberal
- Liberal, but will bend to get elected
- Conservative, but will bend to get elected

If you wanted true parity, you would need a true ultra-conservative party - not a bunch of religious nutjobs, but people who believe in the tenets of personal initiative and states rights and so on. Then you would have 4 way parity, ... and as PJ says, absolute shrill gridlock.

I would be happy with a 20:30:30:20 mix there ... something to allow the centrists to flex power and stay true to themselves while allowing both ends some influence over the debate. Despite the opinions formed by the Bush crew in the heads of an overwhelming majority of people from all ends of the spectrum, no one group has a monopoly on 'rightness' by virtue of their fundamental political ideology.

You don't have absolute gridlock in Europe & Scandinavia, you have compromise towards the center. The *extremists* are gridlocked ; but those who modify their policies are facilitated.

Again, if Americans prefer the Kingdom of omnipotent presidential vetos, polarization, extremism, indifference of politicians, unilateral foreign policy agendas, oblivious responses to negative policy effects, leader authoritarianism, and blatant lack of compromise, then they will stick with the donkey vs. elephant (fraudulent) 2-party state monopoly, while all alternative voices, including socialist AND libertarian ones, are disallowed and strongly shunned.

Arpyjee

January 15th, 2008, 17:54

The problem isn't that we have more free trade: the problem is that the trade is unfair, benefiting corporate interests über alls, and rewarding asset-stripping, environmental degradation, predatory lending, and exploitation of labor.

So what about a more humanitarian/populist standard of statistical evaluation ? Instead of judging the efficacy and viability of an economic system based on CEO well being and satisfaction, what about measuring the child poverty rates / health care coverage / homelessness as well ? CEO's make up a puny percentage of the population, whereas 15+% of American children live in poverty. Many believe that the current scenario is acceptable because miilionaires MUST be free to become billionaires, unconditionally.

Shouldn't there be a scientific method of evaluation as to the socio-economic effects on the entire population ?

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 20:01

You don't have absolute gridlock in Europe & Scandinavia, you have compromise towards the center. The *extremists* are gridlocked ; but those who modify their policies are facilitated.

Not now, and not in all countries -- but Belgium just went for months without a government, Finland from 1960 to 1980 had chronically unstable governments that led to power sliding to a semi-authoritarian president, and Israel can't manage to agree about what to serve for lunch in the Knesset cafeteria, let alone doing something about sorting out the Palestinian problem.

Again, I have a strong preference for multi-party systems, but they don't work everywhere and all the time; much depends on culture and the political climate. You can't make one out of whole cloth anymore than you can export democracy on a bayonet.

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 20:14

Shouldn't there be a scientific method of evaluation as to the socio-economic effects on the entire population ?

There are efforts in that direction. The most important is called the Green Net National Product (GNNP). It's basically the gross national product (GNP) minus depreciation minus depletion of natural resources minus the calculated cost of pollution, plus one or two other things, which pad up the 235 pages used to define it. It's clearly better than GDP, since you can't, for example, artificially raise it by stripping and selling off assets.

You might be a bit surprised to hear where it's from: the World Bank.

[ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/214574-1153316226850/20781069/EnvironmentalDegradationManual.pdf ]

It's not perfect, I'm sure, but if GNNP replaced GDP in popular economic benchmarks, things would look pretty different.

txa1265

January 15th, 2008, 20:30

Again, I have a strong preference for multi-party systems, but they don't work everywhere and all the time; much depends on culture and the political climate. You can't make one out of whole cloth anymore than you can export democracy on a bayonet.

But then again, gridlock, filibuster, stalemate and the like are sometimes a very positive political move.

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 21:22

But then again, gridlock, filibuster, stalemate and the like are sometimes a very positive political move.

Sometimes, but if it becomes endemic, the results can be dire.

Lebanon has a multi-party system too. They've been gridlocked since September... or, looking at the bigger picture, March, 2005. If they don't manage to resolve the gridlock, there's a real danger of civil war. There was another bomb just now, this time in Doura (Beirut), and this time targeting Americans. Clearly someone wants the situation to escalate.

Eliaures

January 15th, 2008, 21:45

I take it you're against trade liberalization and free trade, then. If so, could you elaborate a bit on the alternatives? That is, which types of trade barriers would you like to see erected -- tariffs, regulation, subsidies, something else? --, who would you have erect them, and how would you go about avoiding international trade wars if they were erected?

Unfortunately, I'm a little out of my league in expressing exactly what specific mechanisms I would approve with regards to trade policy. I do like your ideas and that's seems to be the main thing I'm proposing, is capitalism with a little restraint. I don't think free wheeling capitalism works.

Corporations have one function they are best at, never mind the touchy feely commercials we are seeing from energy companies these days, and that is making money for shareholders...and CEO's. Ideally what they want is no regulation, no laws, no restraint at all. As an individual, I guess I wouldn't mind that either. Do I want that stereo system in my neighbors house? I just take it and there is no law barring me from doing so. I let my killer pit bull roam free and he mauled a local kid? Well, it's my right to have a dangerous dog and it's the kids fault for not being on the look out.

It's only natural that we want to get away with as much as we can, but that's why government is supposed to represent the public good. Corporations have much more influence by way of money than John Q. Public. Corporations have shown that no matter how pie-in-the-sky libertarians and laissez-faire proponents bleat about it, self regulation does not work.

I much prefer the well intentioned government influence of Keynesian economics to the hands off approach of Friedman. Do they get it right all the time? Nope. But I would prefer a few welfare moms having Cadillacs to another Gulfstream jet for some fat cat CEO.

txa1265

January 15th, 2008, 22:05

Sometimes, but if it becomes endemic, the results can be dire.
Absolutely, I was responding to the spirit of a comment before - that I have seen too often - that any intentionally stoppage of 'progress' in parliamentary proceedings is a bad thing.

Prime Junta

January 15th, 2008, 22:31

Corporations have one function they are best at, never mind the touchy feely commercials we are seeing from energy companies these days, and that is making money for shareholders...and CEO's. Ideally what they want is no regulation, no laws, no restraint at all.

That's certainly the spirit in many corporations today, but not all -- and it's also a comparatively recent development. General Motors in the 1950's and 1960's, IBM in the 1970's, and many Japanese corporations today do genuinely take into consideration more of their stakeholders than just shareholders and CEO's. Google is another such example. And yeah, I think much could be done in terms of legislation, incentives, and regulation to promote such socially responsible corporate behavior. At the very least, the current laws, which actually make it *illegal* for a corporation to do something nice if it hurts the share price, should be reformed.

I much prefer the well intentioned government influence of Keynesian economics to the hands off approach of Friedman. Do they get it right all the time? Nope. But I would prefer a few welfare moms having Cadillacs to another Gulfstream jet for some fat cat CEO.

Especially as there never was a welfare queen in a Cadillac.

That said, I kinda doubt the President of the United States could do anything much about the CEO Gulfstreams -- the widening spread of income distributions is a global phenomenon, and equally apparent in Euroweenie welfare states as the US.

But the government does have the power to do a whole lot that is both ethical and in the long run economically sensible -- such as provide improved education, health care, and nutrition to poor children. That'll have a huge payoff when they eventually enter the workforce: they'll be less likely to turn criminal, more productive workers, and incur lower health care costs, which will drive up the productivity of the economy, and affect overall prosperity. (Some people much wiser than I am have in fact calculated that such programs would be the cheapest way to increase American economic productivity.)

But it's a long-term investment. Give better school lunches to kindergarteners today, and you'll only see the results 15 years from now -- and, worse, you won't be able to disentangle the results from the rest of the data.

Corwin

January 16th, 2008, 01:15

Eliaures

January 16th, 2008, 01:43

Especially as there never was a welfare queen in a Cadillac.

Heh, heh...I know that. That's the problem with the written word, you can't tell when someone is being sarcastic unless they're really good. I'm agreeing with all you're saying, I truly believe that human investment really pays off. Folks that don't have to worry about their meals, health care, housing, and security are much more productive. I really wonder at the practical economics of educated economists. It just seems logical to me that when folks are satisfied and working, they are going to be a good market for the crap the industrial and technical world is pushing. What's going to happen to the world economy when the U.S. can't spend themselves silly any more? I suppose China and India could take our place?

I don't begrudge hard working CEO's their perks.

The problem is, the average CEO salary is now (I don't have the specific number) getting around 400 times the average salary worker. How can you quantify hard work? Is the CEO really working that much harder than the salary man? A lot of conservatives will say that the CEO's take the risks and therefore deserve a compensatory wage, but that's just not true in most cases. If you are someone like Mark Cuban or Bill Gates, I guess since they were there at the startup, maybe they deserve some benefit for the risk.

But most CEO's now come in to established companies at high salaries, with golden parachutes, and huge bonuses which are NOT based upon performance. Just recently, banking execs and mortgage execs received huge bonuses and this is after the prime mortgage fiasco.

dteowner

January 16th, 2008, 01:57

* Kyoto/Bali with teeth. A climate treaty that sets up emissions targets for all adherents, divides up emissions targets of non-adherents between the adherents, institutes a carbon-trading market that rewards reforestation and preservation of forests (among other things), and enforces the targets through "carbon tariffs," equally on members and non-members of the treaty. The monies collected with the tariffs would then be spent among adherents on carbon sequestration and emissions reduction. We would need a global body to monitor the system, too. (The good news is this has been done before on a somewhat smaller scale -- we got rid of CFC's with a system very much like this.)This sounds nice, but you'll never get China and the US (let alone the rest of the world) to agree on a consistent set of standards. China's current boom is powered by blatant disregard for environmental concerns. They will have no interest in giving away their competitive advantage. The US, OTOH, is powered by an established eco-unfriendly infrastructure. We'll have no interest in tearing down the "engine" that's put us on top. In the end, a good idea will get derailed when it cannot support the divergent self-interest of various economies.
* Abolition of agricultural subsidies, with a possible exception made for small family farmers to preserve cultural values. For example, cap the subsidy at, say, $20,000 per farm -- enough to make a critical difference for the small family farmer, but small enough to effectively eliminate their current negative effects. This could be done gradually, and social programs might be needed to cushion the effects of the somewhat higher food prices on the poor. (The rise wouldn't be as big as you could think simply from the size of the subsidy, though, as imports from the developing world would replace the subsidized food from the developed world.)Once again, the US gets to bear the brunt of the policy. Why would the US want to import food of all things? We already suffer a ridiculous trade deficit, and now you want to make it worse? Not likely. Can't say I'm a fan of ag subsidies, but this alternative simply won't fly.
* Abolition of corporate welfare, especially of the oil and extractive industries. Exxon is doing just fine without being subsidized by the state, IMO. Exceptions could be made to seed new industries -- but capitalizing small startups to give them a leg-up is a very different matter from funneling billions to the likes of Exxon-Mobil or Monsanto.I'd like a little more depth on this accusation. Exactly what subsidies are you referring to? If the government goes to spend $100, it's only to be expected that the lion's share of that spending is going to go to bigger companies because they're...wait for it....bigger. They offer a wider range of products, and those products are in wider demand--that's how the companies got big. And I would hate to think that you meant to omit state-sponsored Chinese conglomerates from your target. I'll just assume you mentioned only US companies for expedience.
* Sensible controls on the capital market. Unlike hard goods, capital can be zapped around the world at the click of a button. This results in greater instability, not greater growth -- and, of course, makes it possible for illegal drug and arms dealers, terrorists, and dictators to easily hide their money. We need more transparency and something to slow down capital flows -- perhaps a "Tobin tax," or perhaps just adding a "throttle" that makes transferring billions of dollars slower than it is now. If the current system is like a shallow tray where capital sloshes around and causes all kinds of spills, we'd need to add something like a honeycomb structure that gets it to stay put a bit more.So now you're going to control what I can do with my money, when I can do it, and how much I can do it with? And here I thought Stalin was dead. You decry the Patriot Act and then offer this up? You can do better than that, PJ.
* A redistribution of risk to where it belongs. Currently, the main function of institutions like the IMF, the World Bank -- and, incidentally, various quasi-governmental banks in the US -- is to protect creditors, not debtors. On the micro scale, a mortgage broker who knowingly or negligently sells a mortgage to a bad risk knows that he can walk away, with the taxpayer picking up the bill for an eventual default combined with a drop in the value of the house. On the macro scale, a Western lender knowingly or negligently lending a billion or two to a country known to be a bad risk can be confident that, when push comes to shove, the IMF will squeeze the money out of the debtor, even if it means selling off the debtor's means of production. Lenders must be made to carry more of the risk of their bad debts: the flip side of overborrowing is overlending, whether we're talking mortgages or national debt.I'm actually on board for this one, with one stipulation: the first person that whines that (insert African war zone of choice) is stuck in the dark ages because the mean old rich countries won't give them a loan gets drawn and quartered on a global simul-cast.

curiously undead

January 16th, 2008, 02:01

stop watching professional sports Corwin if it bothers you. personally i'd rather watch professional gardeners. i do like intramural and sports for the fun of it however. playing though not watching.

the commercials, announcers, attitudes, and fat paychecks don't prevent most from still watching their sports teams and perpetuating the 'winners' and 'losers' mentality that should have been dropped thousands of years ago. but still many are drawn in for many reasons. but basically...
stop watching those games if it bothers you to make a statement.
same goes with ceos. don't support bad companies by continually buying there products/services.

editL
don't worry dte china may be enviro-unfriendly but its their backyard and front that is going to be on the frontlines of global warming suffering.

Corwin

January 16th, 2008, 03:10

Whether I watch or not makes no difference to their paychecks!! I want them to play, but for a LOT less money!!

curiously undead

January 16th, 2008, 03:51

it absolutely does. no fans=no players.
any market driven by consumption will lead to beneficiaries at the top.
its no different than most 'pop' music. a local band playing a free show (or near it) at a coffee shop is just as much (if not more) a musician than someone signed to capitol records. same goes for the local group of guys and gals playing softball or hockey are just as much athletes as all the rich pro players. pro sports are not about athletisism but entertainment. 'your' money is used to feed and craft the latest greatest 'experience' not the pureness of sporting or music, etc. attention spans are far to short and lack of convienience to great for those sort of things and no golf is not the answer;)

Corwin

January 16th, 2008, 06:49

I only watch on TV, they get no money out of me!! :)

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 07:05

Not now, and not in all countries -- but Belgium just went for months without a government, Finland from 1960 to 1980 had chronically unstable governments that led to power sliding to a semi-authoritarian president, and Israel can't manage to agree about what to serve for lunch in the Knesset cafeteria, let alone doing something about sorting out the Palestinian problem.

Again, I have a strong preference for multi-party systems, but they don't work everywhere and all the time; much depends on culture and the political climate. You can't make one out of whole cloth anymore than you can export democracy on a bayonet.

You've merely put forth the rather remote exceptions which actually prove the general rule. Consider all of the *recent (since 1990) multi-party western 1st world democracies with proportional representation*, and you'll find that the US ranks far below Canada, Ireland, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland, Belgium and almost all others when statistical socio-economic indicators/statistics are compared. The US ranks far worse in life expectancy, infant mortality, poverty, violent crime, incarceration, homelessness, personal bankruptcy, government transparency, media transparency, corruption indexes, peace indexes, educational standards, health care, etc. But American CEO's get to upgrade their status exponentially.

Those are the practical effects of the US being utterly dominated by authoritarian corporatism (as opposed to pragmatic centrism) brought to the American people by the untouchable elitist monopoly of oblivious donkeys and elephants.

All of the aforementioned countries have their versions neo-liberalism restrained by the many parties, which effectively reign in the most wreckless and extremist agendas, and therefore, the general population benefits more than the CEOs, military leaders and politicians.

The socio-economic indicators will only get worse for the average American if their politician's policies don't become more moderate, pragmatic and populist.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 07:10

There are efforts in that direction. The most important is called the Green Net National Product (GNNP). It's basically the gross national product (GNP) minus depreciation minus depletion of natural resources minus the calculated cost of pollution, plus one or two other things, which pad up the 235 pages used to define it. It's clearly better than GDP, since you can't, for example, artificially raise it by stripping and selling off assets.

You might be a bit surprised to hear where it's from: the World Bank.

[ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/214574-1153316226850/20781069/EnvironmentalDegradationManual.pdf ]

It's not perfect, I'm sure, but if GNNP replaced GDP in popular economic benchmarks, things would look pretty different.

That's still a little too much faith in neo-lib think tanks, imo PJ. They are run by elitists who don't represent the average folk, or the poor and the lower middle class.

Life expectancy, infant mortality, poverty rates, violent crime rates, incarceration rates, homelessness, personal bankruptcy rates, and many other indicators/statistics are currently available, which prove that the bankers, CEOs, military leaders, and politicians of the US are reaping far more extravagant rewards than the average American citizen.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 07:12

But then again, gridlock, filibuster, stalemate and the like are sometimes a very positive political move.

Yes, as long as they reign in the ideological extremists, and make the various camps find common sense and common ground at the center, for the benefit of the entire populace.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 07:22

Sometimes, but if it becomes endemic, the results can be dire.

Lebanon has a multi-party system too. They've been gridlocked since September... or, looking at the bigger picture, March, 2005. If they don't manage to resolve the gridlock, there's a real danger of civil war. There was another bomb just now, this time in Doura (Beirut), and this time targeting Americans. Clearly someone wants the situation to escalate.

If you consider all of the western democracies since 1990, they almost always avoid the Lebanese scenario. Again, you are reaching for remote exceptions.

In different parts of the world, especially the middle east, multi-party proportional representation might not be applicable. Also, consider the imperialist/interventionist foreign policy of the US and the likelihood that it exacerbates conflicts and anti-American sentiment there (to take a Ron Paul / Dennis Kucinich foreign policy perspective).

When you compare ALL of the western 1st world democracies, it's actually the US which has had the most partisan friction, entrenched presidential veto power and congressional gridlock, to the detriment of the general populace.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 07:31

I don't profess to know very much about economics, but I don't begrudge hard working CEO's their perks. What upsets me more, is the obscene amount of money some sports stars get paid compared to what the average hard working common 'man' gets. I worked hard and helped a lot of people over many years and didn't earn anywhere near what many NFL players get in one year. We have people starving and living on the streets while they are out organising dog fights!! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching the games, but you can't convince me that they are worth what they're getting.

I contend that successful people should have the moral and legal right to be relatively wealthy.

But carry it to the extreme, where multi-millionaires get to become billionaires while child poverty rates and personal bankruptcies grow and grow, well that's just polarized extremism, and there has to be a more moderate model which can actually benefit and accomodate the entire society, from top to bottom.

When billionaire Warren Buffet pays half the income tax rate of his secretary, when 100 billion dollars are given out every year by the federal government in corporate welfare, and when 55% of the American tax dollar goes towards military expenditures, you know something is definitely askew... especially while millions of Americans are going without adequate food, shelter and health care.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 07:49

But most CEO's now come in to established companies at high salaries, with golden parachutes, and huge bonuses which are NOT based upon performance. Just recently, banking execs and mortgage execs received huge bonuses and this is after the prime mortgage fiasco.

Take 4 other countries for example : Japan, Norway, Denmark and Finland. All 4 have very competitive economies, a very high standard of living, and many very rich CEOs. Norway actually has been rated as having the highest standard of living 5 years in a row, and it also has the greatest number of millionaires per capita (1 out of every 85 Norwegians are millionaires).

The difference is that their CEOs accomodate/accept unions, a higher minimum wage, consumer protections and a higher *personal* income tax rate (for the rich). But corporate tax rates are still kept low to aid economic competitiveness, ingenuity, adaptation and innovation.

The results ? They have very low child poverty rates (3% in Denmark vs. 15% in the US), higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, better educational standards, better health care, much less violent crime, much less incarceration and a MUCH smaller pay gap between workers and CEOs, yet their CEOs are still very very wealthy. Virtually none of their citizens are homeless, starving or without health care.

Ireland, after decades of poverty and violence, has embraced the 3rd way socio-economic model as well (with multi-party proportional representation), and now is overtaking nearly all of the countries it lagged behind for so long. They have embraced socially conscious economics. They actually use capitalism to fuel both an efficient social safety net and CEO rewards (rather than choosing one of two dichotomies).

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 12:03

When you compare ALL of the western 1st world democracies, it's actually the US which has had the most partisan friction, entrenched presidential veto power and congressional gridlock, to the detriment of the general populace.

That's very likely true -- however, are you sure that the two-party system is to blame? The UK, for example, has a two-party system without many of the negatives you listed. Conversely, Belgium has a multi-party system that pretty much ground to a complete halt just now.

(Once more, I personally believe a system of proportional representation is the better system on balance, *but* I recognize it needs a specific kind of political and cultural landscape to work. I would like to see it tried somewhere in the USA, say, on the municipal and state level, where it could be rolled back if it didn't work out.)

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 12:05

That's still a little too much faith in neo-lib think tanks, imo PJ. They are run by elitists who don't represent the average folk, or the poor and the lower middle class.

Um, the World Bank isn't a neo-lib think tank. The advocates of GNNP include Joe Stiglitz, who is just about as far from neo-lib as you can get.

Life expectancy, infant mortality, poverty rates, violent crime rates, incarceration rates, homelessness, personal bankruptcy rates, and many other indicators/statistics are currently available, which prove that the bankers, CEOs, military leaders, and politicians of the US are reaping far more extravagant rewards than the average American citizen.

I'm glad I'm no longer the only one on this board yelling about these kinds of unfortunate truths.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 13:16

when 55% of the American tax dollar goes towards military expenditures...

Where did you get this number? According to Wikipedia, the 2008 budget has about $480 billion set aside for the military and $145 bn for the "global war on terror." The total budget is $2.9 trillion, which would make military expenditure about 20%, give or take a few per cent depending on how you count the GWOT. ("A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.")

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 13:17

That's very likely true -- however, are you sure that the two-party system is to blame? The UK, for example, has a two-party system without many of the negatives you listed. Conversely, Belgium has a multi-party system that pretty much ground to a complete halt just now.

(Once more, I personally believe a system of proportional representation is the better system on balance, *but* I recognize it needs a specific kind of political and cultural landscape to work. I would like to see it tried somewhere in the USA, say, on the municipal and state level, where it could be rolled back if it didn't work out.)

Just to summarize, I believe the 2-party system is generally worse, and the multi-party proportional systems are generally better wrt representing and implementing the views of the entirety of the general populace. All systems are imperfect, however, and the US is possibly not the right scenario for the Euro-Scandinavian system, and the Middle Eastern countries are PROBABLY not the right scenarios, imo.

I think we might be on the same page, but viewing at different angles.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 13:24

Um, the World Bank isn't a neo-lib think tank. The advocates of GNNP include Joe Stiglitz, who is just about as far from neo-lib as you can get.

...

I'm glad I'm no longer the only one on this board yelling about these kinds of unfortunate truths.

Well if Stiglitz is more prominent there, then centrism is winning (and my apologies for assuming the worst about that alternate standard of evaluation you mentioned) ! You might already know his views on Venezuela, Bolivia and the rest of South & Central America : his views are quite progressive and inclusive.

But that's really all I can spew on the issue, I find it frustrating and exhausting. People who do this full time (advocate for moderate, 3rd way, progressive socio-economic models) deserve a lot of credit.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 13:29

Where did you get this number? According to Wikipedia, the 2008 budget has about $480 billion set aside for the military and $145 bn for the "global war on terror." The total budget is $2.9 trillion, which would make military expenditure about 20%, give or take a few per cent depending on how you count the GWOT. ("A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.")

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Whatever it is, it's too darn high, imo.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 13:34

Take 4 other countries for example : Japan, Norway, Denmark and Finland...

These are also all highly homogenous ethnically and culturally. Norway, Denmark, and Finland have smaller populations that New York City. Japan has a radically different social-economic structure and traditions than any of these countries or the USA.

This is probably my ENTP devil's-advocate streak kicking in, since (1) I agree with almost everything you're saying, (2) I'm tickled pink that someone else is arguing the case I've been arguing here, and doing it so well, and (3) I'm always tickled to see someone mention Finland, but still...

Yeah, I think the USA could learn some things from these (and other) countries, if it bothered to look, but it's also dangerous to tout their examples as patent medicine that might taste bitter but that'll work if you just hold your nose and swallow it.

Finland, for example, is a very peculiar country in some economically significant ways. We have an extremely strong tradition of national solidarity -- we see ourselves as small and isolated, and are very wary of trusting to any outside power to do anything for us.

That shows in some ways that are silly and counterproductive (e.g. our attitude towards agricultural self-sufficiency), and some that are not so silly (e.g. our system of state representatives, industry representatives, and union representatives sitting down every year to hammer out a general agreement on mandatory terms of employment). We've had perfectly stable coalition governments that include everyone from the National Coalition (the Conservative party) to the Left Alliance (basically what's left of the Communist party since the USSR went tits-up). That's highly unusual: Sweden has a similar political system and rather similar culture, but there's no way they could get even the center-right and center-left parties to share a government, let alone the genuine left and right.

So, again, Arpyjee -- I salute you for what you're doing, but I'd also like to add that while the US could (and IMO should!) look for lessons, ideas, and models in other countries, it's very, very important to understand what makes their solutions work. For example, I very much doubt it would be possible to have anything resembling the Finnish trilateral labor negotiations in a country as big as the US, or even as big as California.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 13:35

I think we might be on the same page, but viewing at different angles.

I'm virtually certain we're on the same page; more like we're just reading different paragraphs.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 13:46

Whatever it is, it's too darn high, imo.

Hard to argue with that.

I think the 55% number is a pretty good example of "playing funny with the numbers," though: since money is fungible, the only objective way to classify the cost of servicing the national debt is to divide it among the other outlays in proportion to them. You don't classify interest payments under military spending, or any other single rubric (other than "interest payments.")

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 13:52

Btw, I've studied the Scandinavian/Nordic region. It's a good example of principled pragmatism. They, as you know, use their peculiar brand of economically vibrant and vital semi-capitalism to fuel their efficient welfare state. Universal education (including post secondary), universal health care, paid pregnacy leave, universal day care, consumer protections, etc., all coming via a centristic model of utilitarianism via multi-party proportional representation, political coalitions and ideological compromises. Finland and it's Scandinavian allies have 8-10 parties to choose from, varying from democratic socialist parties to far right nationalist parties and everywhere in between. Not only that, their votes aren't lost in a winner takes all political monopoly system.

If the overwhelming US concensus is to move towards such a scientific, pragmatic mixture, then that version of Scandinavian social democracy is probably applicable, with considerable tweaking. But to the extent the entirety of the US population is not willing to move towards such a model (with high unionization rates, and high taxes on the incomes of the mega-rich), then that is the degree to which that social democratic system is not applicable to the US. It's really a matter of collective will and concensus.

As a dual citizen of Canada and the US, I can tell you that the desire among the populace in North America for ultra-right wing authoritarian policies (of war, greed and persecution) delivered by the neo-cons, is declining (due to observance of the effects of such policies) but is still very much prevalent (and according to the Northern European / Scandinavian standard, rather repulsive).

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 14:08

I believe that it's the socio-economic system, not non-homogeneous ethnic populations which is the problem.

I agree, and I didn't intend to say that you can't have a well-functioning "social democracy" in an ethnically diverse country; I was simply pointing out some peculiarities of the countries you listed that I believe have something to do with how their societies turned out.

I believe that homogeneity of the population was a significant factor in the emergence of these socio-economic systems. It's a great deal easier to reach a national consensus if everybody shares the same cultural assumptions. It'll be very interesting to see how well these systems adapt to globalization and immigration. We shouldn't assume that everything just magically sorts itself out -- for example, research has shown that increased diversity decreases social cohesion, which poses a challenge to "consensus societies" like Finland. (Nor should we slam the doors on immigration. What we should do is recognize that it poses a challenge, and try to think of creative ways of rising to it.)

Since you brought up Sweden, you should also note that it has real trouble integrating its immigrants. This shows in lots of ways, from the rise of neo-Nazi political movements, the low socio-economic status and marginalization of many immigrant groups, right down to the micro level. (There was a bit of a hoopla in the Finnish press recently when a state bureau in Uppsala forbade the use of the Finnish language within office premises, even off-duty, for example; we're particularly sensitive to that since Swedish is the second official language here, and it's taught as a mandatory subject at school -- even though the Swedish-speaking minority amounts to only about 4% of the population.)

My intention wasn't to dispute your program of a socially and environmentally conscious political and economical system and its benefits; on the contrary. I'm just saying that there are reasons why these countries and systems work in the ways they do, and if you don't look at the reasons, you'll draw the wrong conclusions.

And I'm *also* saying that none of these systems are without their trade-offs and challenges (for example, the US has consistently lower unemployment than any of the countries you listed, with the possible exception of Japan.) I think we should step back and look at the systems as they are, try to identify what works well, why it works well, what doesn't work so well, where are the challenges, and what we could do about them. The "third way" isn't really any single way; it encompasses everything from China's authoritarian export-driven "controlled capitalism" to Scandinavian "consensus societies," or Hugo Chavez's "petrol to the poor" program. That's what makes it a tougher sell, too -- there are no simple slogans that promise to fix all of society's ills.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 14:20

These are also all highly homogenous ethnically and culturally. Norway, Denmark, and Finland have smaller populations that New York City. Japan has a radically different social-economic structure and traditions than any of these countries or the USA.

I've started to be concerned about the 'ethnically homogeneous demographics' argument.

1) Toronto & Vancouver are predominantly non-white, but have much lower per capita violent crime rates than the predominantly non-white large American cities. The homicide rate among US whites is much higher than the homicide rate among Canadian whites.

2) Look at Ireland throughout the 1970's & 1980's, their population was almost unilaterally white yet they had a violent, impoverished environment and a horrid socio-economic system. Now, after a rapid influx of visible minorities, and a much different socio-economic system they are leapfrogging past nearly every country in standard of living / quality of life ratings.

3) When the Russia employed brutal, extreme, authoritarian Communism, were they less white than they are today ? Moscow residents are far better off today than in the 1970's & 1980 's, yet the population are no more ethnically homogeneous.

4) Study what Sweden does for their 15,000 Iraqi refugess they accept every year (they accept as many or more than the US does). They give them a massive social safety net. If a black family from Detroit (which has 33% poverty rates and a rampant violent crime rate) were to move to Helsinki, Oslo or Stockholm, they'd have virtually no chance of being homeless, hungry, impoverished or without health care.

I believe that it's the socio-economic system, not non-homogeneous ethnic populations which is the problem.

KazikluBey

January 16th, 2008, 14:28

I only watch on TV, they get no money out of me!! :)
If people didn't watch sports on TV, the TV companies wouldn't pay huge amounts of money for the rights to broadcast the sports, so by watching you do help perpetuate the system.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 14:29

I've started to be concerned about the 'ethnically homogeneous demographics' argument.

Edit: whoops, looks like something strange happened to the posting order in this thread; I ended up drafting a second reply to Arpyjee's message. Please ignore the repetition if you bother reading it.

You may have misunderstood me slightly. I wasn't claiming that only an ethnically homogeneous demographic can produce a functioning social-democratic system; my point was that I believe that the homogeneity of the population in the Scandinavian countries and Japan is a factor in the emergence of their systems.

It's also a fact that the systems in the Scandinavian countries -- especially Sweden -- have problems integrating their new immigrants: you see this in the marginalization of the immigrant populations, the emergence of extreme-right, even neo-Nazi political movements, and smaller things like mandatory use of Swedish at the workplace, even during breaks.

I guess my main point is that all of these countries have their unique social-political systems that have peculiarities attributable to cultural and demographic peculiarities in them. Without understanding the basis, you might draw the wrong conclusions when looking at them for lessons.

As to immigration? There's no point in pretending that it isn't a challenge: instead, we should face it and try to find creative solutions to make it work. Slamming the door is not a valid option IMO, but neither is pretending that all we need to do is issue a passport.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 14:32

And I'm *also* saying that none of these systems are without their trade-offs and challenges (for example, the US has consistently lower unemployment than any of the countries you listed, with the possible exception of Japan.)

What's interesting about the hyper-employed US population, is that the statistic is mainly due to the vast number of extremely low paying jobs which keep the employees (often immigrants) as part of the 'working poor'. Also, while they are working for peanuts (due to lack of unions and a very low minimum wage), they have to contend with being bankrupted by (privatized) medical expenses and education fees.

The neo-cons keep offering home ownership rates and employment rates as evidence of the US system being superior to the Canadian, European or Scandinavian systems. The people of Los Angeles, Detroit, New Orleans, Ocala - Florida, Mobile - Alabama, Atlanta, and elsewhere are starting to be aware of the misleading propoganda.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 14:35

Edit: whoops, looks like something strange happened to the posting order in this thread;

My fault (too much caffeine + too much 2-finger typing + too much chaotic editing = pixelated anarchy).

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 14:39

What's interesting about the hyper-employed US population, is that the statistic is mainly due to the vast number of extremely low paying jobs which keep the employees (often immigrants) as part of the 'working poor'. Also, while they are working for peanuts (due to lack of unions and a very low minimum wage), they have to contend with being bankrupted by (privatized) medical expenses and education fees.

That's true now, but it wasn't always true. From the 1950's to the early 1970's, the American economy was consistently closer to full employment, with higher social mobility and no larger income differentials than Europe. IOW, the USA was doing something right in a big way that Europe was getting wrong. The Scandinavian economies have been "vibrant" only for the last 20 years or so. I grew up in Finland in the 1970's and early 1980's, but also lived in the US for a couple of years in that time -- and compared to California, Finland was grim. And I'm not talking (only) about the climate.

So it's arguable that the current situation reflects a breakdown of the American system rather than any inherent weakness in it. Which doesn't mean the USA couldn't draw valuable lessons from the Scandinavian experience, of course.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 14:49

Since you brought up Sweden, you should also note that it has real trouble integrating its immigrants. This shows in lots of ways, from the rise of neo-Nazi political movements, the low socio-economic status and marginalization of many immigrant groups, right down to the micro level. (There was a bit of a hoopla in the Finnish press recently when a state bureau in Uppsala forbade the use of the Finnish language within office premises, even off-duty, for example; we're particularly sensitive to that since Swedish is the second official language here, and it's taught as a mandatory subject at school -- even though the Swedish-speaking minority amounts to only about 4% of the population.)

You see, this is where I contend that the humanitarianism can be taken too far, to an impractical extreme. Look at the Netherlands, look at Sweden & Finland. Now look at my home countries (Canada and the US). Where do those omni-benevolent Europeans & Scandinavians get thet idea that they can have infinite/exponential immigration rates ? Even Canada, with it's very low population density and vastness, has had troubles integrating immigrants (militant Sikhs in Vancouver and Jamaican gangs in Toronto, for example). Do my fellow citizens really believe that 250,000 (in 2001) immigrants per year is anything but unreasonable ?

It's quite obvious (to me anyways) that when such social problems are evident, you have to reduce the immigration rate (by 10-70%) and work harder to integrate the foreign populations. That is the only truly benevolent, humanitarian, practical and feasible approach, imo.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 14:58

That's true now, but it wasn't always true. From the 1950's to the early 1970's, the American economy was consistently closer to full employment, with higher social mobility and no larger income differentials than Europe. IOW, the USA was doing something right in a big way that Europe was getting wrong.

Well, "that was then and this is now" (now = the Clinton-Bush dynasty of rampaging corporate interests). After 8 unfettered years of Bushian Neo-Con domination, rampaging and pummelling, the negative effects are bound to occur. It's time for some pragmatic centrism and alternate approaches.

txa1265

January 16th, 2008, 15:28

Well, "that was then and this is now" (now = the Clinton-Bush dynasty of rampaging corporate interests). After 8 unfettered years of Bushian Neo-Con domination, rampaging and pummelling, the negative effects are bound to occur. It's time for some pragmatic centrism and alternate approaches.
As much as I liked Reagan for many reasons, I believe that most of this stuff can be traced to the stuff done in those years to deal with the decade of recession and 'malaise' during the 70's.

Arpyjee

January 16th, 2008, 15:48

I agree that the seeds were likely sown back then, txa1265, but the garden was fully bloomed and manicured during the Clinton-Bush years.

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 16:03

As much as I liked Reagan for many reasons, I believe that most of this stuff can be traced to the stuff done in those years to deal with the decade of recession and 'malaise' during the 70's.

I think this is as much a crisis of values as it is of policies. Thirty years ago, the very idea of a CEO raking in a hundred million dollars while his corporation is deeply in the red and shedding employees right and left would have shocked even the most hardened free-market libertarian. Now it's routine.

So, perhaps you're right, in a sense... but not so much the politics as the shift in values. Reagan came up with that welfare queen in her Cadillac to draw attention away from the insider traders in their limos. Of course, the line wouldn't have bit if it had not touched some resonance in the popular consciousness at the time, but I'm sure it did contribute to it.

Increasing income differentials are a global problem. America's specific problem is that the American public at large no longer believes that the government can do good, so it's still reflexively drawn to anyone who "wants to make it so small it can be drowned in a bathtub." If the people running your government don't believe that government can be any good, how well do you expect them to govern? And if you're not willing to give government the means to make a difference, how can you expect it to work? It's a vicious cycle, and it would take a true political genius to break it. Whoever it may turn out to be, if anyone, I kiiiinda doubt s/he's running for president in 2008.

magerette

January 16th, 2008, 21:20

I'm way out of my league on the economics discussion --it's a topic I've always considered terminally boring, but the discussion here is making me want to invest in a copy of $$$ for Dummies--if only to understand the terminology.

AFA Prime J's last point, I agree that Americans are deeply conflicted and increasingly jaded and hostile about politics and government at present, perhaps more so than at any other time in my lifespan including the VietNam era. This is one of the reasons this election has gotten press since last year.

As the campaigns progress, the little placards proclaiming "Change" are proliferating throughout the various warcamps--they were surrounding Romney last night in Michigan, a state he carried trumpeting proposed government financial bailouts for their FUBAR car manufacturing economy. If a full wave of recession begins to hit this country before November, it's going to make things even more confusing for the typical voter. There's no doubt we all want change in some form, and that everyone on the campaign trail right now is either already selling it or wondering how s/he can. The question is, who will write the policies that actually implement true, positive change and promote them in a digestible form that will pass Congress?

Wish I knew.

On a positive note for those who dread the possibility of a Hillary-led regime, the latest poll method (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080116/ts_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc) shows Obama has cut Clinton's popular lead to a very mariginal 1 per cent:

"This is the definition of a hard-fought race," pollster John Zogby said.

The poll was taken on Thursday and Friday, before Tuesday's Michigan Republican primary, in which former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney beat McCain by 39 percent to 30 percent. Huckabee came in third with 16 percent.

Democrats also held a primary in Michigan but a dispute over the date of the vote led the national party to strip the state of its delegates to this summer's presidential nominating convention, making the contest meaningless...

...Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman U.S. president, held a 21-point edge over Obama in October. He cut that to 8 points by last month, and the new survey gave her a 39 percent to [his] 38 percent edge.

Her 1-point lead was well within the poll's margin of error of 4.7 percentage points.

Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, and Clinton were essentially deadlocked among a variety of groups, including men, women, Democrats and independents. Obama led substantially, 65 percent to 15 percent, among black voters. Obama barely led among voters under age 24, a substantial drop in support from last month, but led Clinton among voters aged 55 to 69, normally one of her strengths.

"This is an unbelievably close race at almost every level," Zogby said.

Edit: For those following the Ron Paul debate, he had 4% in this poll.

Ubereil

January 16th, 2008, 22:21

You see, this is where I contend that the humanitarianism can be taken too far, to an impractical extreme. Look at the Netherlands, look at Sweden & Finland. Now look at my home countries (Canada and the US). Where do those omni-benevolent Europeans & Scandinavians get thet idea that they can have infinite/exponential immigration rates ? Even Canada, with it's very low population density and vastness, has had troubles integrating immigrants (militant Sikhs in Vancouver and Jamaican gangs in Toronto, for example). Do my fellow citizens really believe that 250,000 (in 2001) immigrants per year is anything but unreasonable ?

It's quite obvious (to me anyways) that when such social problems are evident, you have to reduce the immigration rate (by 10-70%) and work harder to integrate the foreign populations. That is the only truly benevolent, humanitarian, practical and feasible approach, imo.

From what I've heard (and I don't read newspapers nor follow the news so the risk of me missing something is quite high, but anyway) the reason Sweden takes so many immigrants (by far the most in the world. From what I've seen...) is because no one else will take them. Someone has to take them, and Sweden is the only country that accepts them.

In recent years I've read that another reason that so many wants to go to Sweden is that they've allready got family here (reasonable, since they all fled here in the 90's).

Übereil

Prime Junta

January 16th, 2008, 22:37

I'm way out of my league on the economics discussion --it's a topic I've always considered terminally boring, but the discussion here is making me want to invest in a copy of $$$ for Dummies--if only to understand the terminology.

I recommend Peddling Prosperity by Paul Krugman. It's simultaneously "economics for dummies," an exposé of a variety of economic snake-oil salesmen, and an economic history of the USA of the past few decades (until Clinton 1, which is when it was written). Plus it's very well written, with highly illustrative examples.

The question is, who will write the policies that actually implement true, positive change and promote them in a digestible form that will pass Congress?

Dunno, but the way things look now you'll be lucky if you get small change.

On a positive note for those who dread the possibility of a Hillary-led regime, the latest poll method (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080116/ts_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc) shows Obama has cut Clinton's popular lead to a very mariginal 1 per cent:

Edit: For those following the Ron Paul debate, he had 4% in this poll.

I'm glad I'm not American. I'd have a devil of a time deciding who to vote for. If I rank them politically, my order would be just about the mirror image of their popularity (Kucinich, Edwards, Clinton, Obama), but if I rank them as personalities, they don't fall in the same order at all -- it'd be Obama, Edwards, Clinton (no idea what Kucinich is like).

magerette

January 17th, 2008, 00:47

Thanks for the recommended reading, Prime J. My booklist is getting quite weighty. :)

Caveat:I know little about the man's ideas, but Kucinich gives a pretty good impression of a flaming nutcase in this video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGmYhTYLbno) and often comes off as having a few screws loose. So in the personality sweepstakes, he's not cashing in. He's definitely got his own thing going.( I like his "I saw a UFO last night (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1193128634148360.xml&coll=2)"** type of style, personally but no denying it could strain his credibility..and I've no idea what kind of Prz he'd make. First time I saw him speak was during the first dem debate.)

**Note the source on this before taking it too seriously, folks. ;)

curiously undead

January 17th, 2008, 01:02

kucinich was on democracynow today. they replayed the interview of last nights debate which at the last minute NBC and GE pulled him out of. it was interesting to hear him speak as well as the other dems who were more or less the same. obama, apparently was the only one who made a comment during the debate about his exclusion, also i believe he is the canidate who kucinich is backing.

another reason for me to hate nbc though more than i already do.

magerette

January 17th, 2008, 02:08

I can't actually get the streaming version w/out realplayer, but the transcript of the debate with Kucinich added in is here (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now) at democracynow.com.

I'll give the man some equal time c.u.. after the personality stuff I posted above--he is definitely not mincing words:

AMY GOODMAN: And now the voice excluded from this debate on this key issue around war, we put that question that Tim Russert put to you, Congressmember Kucinich, as well as the other candidates in New Hampshire, around the withdrawal of troops.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I’m the only person running for president who not only voted against the war, but voted 100% of the time against funding the war. What you’ve heard here is a bunch of nuancing. They’re all saying the same thing, that they will keep troops in Iraq. The troops will be kept there to protect an embassy. The troops will be kept there for counterinsurgency and for training the Iraqi military.

Well, the fact of the matter is, we must get out of Iraq. We must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home. We don’t have a right to have an embassy there, as we are an occupying army. And any way that the United States government would keep its foot in the door of Iraq is a way that the war will continue, because the occupation is fueling the insurgency.

I’m the only one running who had a plan that was introduced immediately after the invasion that called for not only an end to the occupation, closing of the bases, bringing the troops home, but also a parallel process of an international security and peacekeeping force that would move in as our troops leave. We cannot get such a force until the United States determines it will end the occupation. Once we determine we will do that, we can move and to have a rapprochement with Syria, as well as opening diplomatic relations with Iran for the first time in twenty-nine years.

It’s vitally important that we work to effect a program of reconciliation between the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds; an honest reconstruction program, where we get rid of the crooked contractors and the mercenaries who have compounded the American occupation. In addition to that, we need to have a program of reparations to the Iraqi people. Over a million innocent Iraqis have been killed. We must repair the breach. That breach was a monetary one. It is a moral and social one. We have a lot of work to do there, and we’re going to have to do it not by occupying, but by showing that we can have a leader who’s compassionate enough to recognize a moral and financial responsibility to the Iraqi people.

We also have to make sure that the Iraqi people have full control of their oil. I’m the only one who’s running who understood immediately that the Bush program for reconciliation was in fact a plan to privatize Iraq’s oil in order to gain control over a $30 billion oil wealth.

I think that it is manifestly clear that the only person running for president who will bring our troops home, who will get out of there within three months from taking office, is myself. And all the others have tried to game this issue. They either voted for the war, in the case of Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton, or they voted to fund the war, in the case of Senator Edwards, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, who, by the way, campaigned in saying, well, he opposed the war from the start, but then when he was elected to the Senate, his voting record is indistinguishable from Senator Clinton’s with respect to funding the war. So you can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth on this thing. You’re either for getting out of Iraq, or you’re not. If you’re for getting out of Iraq, you don’t keep troops there for any purpose whatsoever.

Eliaures

January 17th, 2008, 03:28

I was highly disappointed with GE/MSNBC's decision to pull Dennis Kucinich. It goes to reinforce my skepticism over corporate America. I had the debate all lined up to record on my Tivo but while I was watching Countdown w/ Keith Olberman, he announced that the decision to exclude Kucinich was upheld. I was really looking forward to the issues I'm sure Kucinich would have brought up and the three front running slick candidates would have had to address. Needless to say, I canceled my recording in anticipation of another milk sop debate.

Eliaures

January 17th, 2008, 03:37

I've been anti-Hillary for quite some time and AGAIN, it comes not from Republican talking points but from publications, pundits, and columnists I respect. Here is a column from my very favorite journalist and commentator, Molly Ivins. I miss her dearly.

I will not support Hillary Clinton for president
January 20, 2006

AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of th